Passenger Trains > Increased Harrisburg-Pittsburgh, PA service study.

Subject: PennDOT Inviting Public Comment on Study Findings for Train Service West of Harrisburg
Date: February 13, 2015 at 11:12:16 AM EST

PennDOT Inviting Public Comment on Study Findings for Train Service West of
Harrisburg

2/13/2015

PennDOT is inviting the public to comment on the findings of a study
identifying potential improvements and associated challenges and resources
for
passenger rail service between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.

The Keystone West High Speed Rail Feasibility Report and Preliminary
Service
Development Plan outlines potential infrastructure and operational
improvements
and what service benefits those improvements could provide.

“Providing transportation options is very important, and we want the
public’s
input on the detailed findings of this report,” Acting PennDOT Secretary
Leslie
S. Richards said. “The study has shown that there are significant
challenges to
improving this service and public feedback will be a valuable complement to

these findings.”

The study can be viewed at www.PlantheKeystone.com on the “Keystone West”
page
under “Resources.” Public feedback will be accepted through Tuesday, March
31,
by emailing KeystoneWest@planthekeystone.com.

The study was conducted in partnership with the Federal Railroad
Administration.

How many "studies" have they done since 40/41 came off ?

Just run a second train!!!

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many "studies" have they done since 40/41 came
> off ?

I'm aware of two Pennsylvania Department of Transportation studies on passenger rail. One looked at potential rail corridors throughout Pennsylvania, but did analyze in detail any of them. The second, this study, is a much more detailed, assessment of improving intercity passenger rail between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg.

There were other studies of high-speed rail across the state, but I believe these were all conducted before 40/41 were discontinued.

You can contact the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for a more definitive and knowledgeable response to your question.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/15 06:40 by RuleG.

cutboy2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just run a second train!!!

I don't think it's that easy any more. In 1980 when the Pennsylvanian was inaugurated, traffic volumes on the Pittsburgh Line were much lower than they are now. Adding even just one more train in each direction seems to require negotiations with Norfolk Southern that were not required of Conrail in 1980. Someone who is knowledgeable about Norfolk Southern's requirements please correct me if I'm wrong about what's involved to add a second train.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cutboy2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just run a second train!!!
>
> I don't think it's that easy any more. In 1980
> when the Pennsylvanian was inaugurated, traffic
> volumes on the Pittsburgh Line were much lower
> than they are now. Adding even just one more
> train in each direction seems to require
> negotiations with Norfolk Southern that were not
> required of Conrail in 1980. Someone who is
> knowledgeable about Norfolk Southern's
> requirements please correct me if I'm wrong about
> what's involved to add a second train.

Traffic levels were not much lower in 1980, they were way, way higher than anything run anywhere on the US rail system today outside of the UP from North Platte to Gibbon. You seem to be misremembering the effects of the deindustrialization of the northeastern US in the period 1979 to 1986 and the elimination of coal fired power plants in the northeast. Needless to say it was devestating to rail traffic.

"Where traffic really gets dense, Conrail will invest in redundancy. Between Pittsburgh and Conpit near Johnstown was the 64 mile long, three track main line with its heavy grades as well as the 78 mile long double track Conemaugh line at river level. If any place qualifies as the heart of Conrail, this district is it; some 135 trains a day typically use one route or the other. On both lines, the railroad rebuilt the track structure, rearranged interlockings, and substituted CTC flexibility for mostly current of traffic operations. This enabled Conrail to retire the third main track on the main." (Trains Magazine, February 1981, pg. 41)

You folks who keep saying just absolute nonsense like this on Trainorders may fool some people some of the time, and maybe you fool some current railroad managers too if you work on the railroad, and you certainly fool the fools in government, but you won't fool those of us who remember what the railroads used to do as little as 30+ years ago.

A second train wasn't inagurated, because it had always been there - the National Limited, which had just been discontinued.

Norfolk Southern previously did a study in the mid-2000's that came up with a fraction of the costs in this study.

Its beyond comical that with essentially the exact same infrastructure today and less than half the trains being run, it is somehow necessary to spend north of $1 billion to put a second passenger train back.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RuleG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > cutboy2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Just run a second train!!!
> >
> > I don't think it's that easy any more. In 1980
> > when the Pennsylvanian was inaugurated, traffic
> > volumes on the Pittsburgh Line were much lower
> > than they are now. Adding even just one more
> > train in each direction seems to require
> > negotiations with Norfolk Southern that were
> not
> > required of Conrail in 1980. Someone who is
> > knowledgeable about Norfolk Southern's
> > requirements please correct me if I'm wrong
> about
> > what's involved to add a second train.
>
> Traffic levels were not much lower in 1980, they
> were way, way higher than anything run anywhere on
> the US rail system today outside of the UP from
> North Platte to Gibbon. You seem to be
> misremembering the effects of the
> deindustrialization of the northeastern US in the
> period 1979 to 1986 and the elimination of coal
> fired power plants in the northeast. Needless to
> say it was devestating to rail traffic.
>
> "Where traffic really gets dense, Conrail will
> invest in redundancy. Between Pittsburgh and
> Conpit near Johnstown was the 64 mile long, three
> track main line with its heavy grades as well as
> the 78 mile long double track Conemaugh line at
> river level. If any place qualifies as the heart
> of Conrail, this district is it; some 135 trains a
> day typically use one route or the other. On both
> lines, the railroad rebuilt the track structure,
> rearranged interlockings, and substituted CTC
> flexibility for mostly current of traffic
> operations. This enabled Conrail to retire the
> third main track on the main." (Trains Magazine,
> February 1981, pg. 41)
>
> You folks who keep saying just absolute nonsense
> like this on Trainorders may fool some people some
> of the time, and maybe you fool some current
> railroad managers too if you work on the railroad,
> and you certainly fool the fools in government,
> but you won't fool those of us who remember what
> the railroads used to do as little as 30+ years
> ago.
>
> A second train wasn't inagurated, because it had
> always been there - the National Limited, which
> had just been discontinued.
>
> Norfolk Southern previously did a study in the
> mid-2000's that came up with a fraction of the
> costs in this study.
>
> Its beyond comical that with essentially the exact
> same infrastructure today and less than half the
> trains being run, it is somehow necessary to spend
> north of $1 billion to put a second passenger
> train back.

How many trains were on run around horseshoe back in 1980? I think there are about 60 plus today...

My view is whatever the traffic levels are now, Harrisburg - Pittsburgh has been far better run by NS than Conrail, who seemed to create a lot more congestion west of the Rockville Bridge and between Altoona and Johnstown. There has not be any of the Indiana Meltdown nonsense here. That said, NS would demand a ransom for capacity expansion for 2nd frequency even if we intuitively think it is not necessary.

This has to be the single most asinine study I have ever seen released by a government agency.

I really wish you would have summarized it so we could all ridicule it. Since you didn't, I will.

Option 1 - Curve Easements - $1.5 BILLION
Option 2 - Curve Easements plus new short stretches of new alignment to bypass a few slow spots - $9.9 BILLION
Option 3 - Option 2 + a Third Track - $13.1 BILLION
Option 4 - PA High Speed Rail - $38.3 BILLION (the only realisitic number in the study).

The proposed schedules from all the Option 1, 2, and 3 work - either one or two new Harrisburg to Pittsburgh round trips. No you didn't read that wrong.

Install concrete ties for ride quality. Really? NS doesn't use concrete ties and has some of the best track in the country.

The study writers admit that they didn't bother to visit the existing stations along the line and instead used Google Earth. I guess they just couldn't find the time for a simple day trip.

Trip time savings from this work that merely get the total journey down to about what the Broadway Limited and other trains ran the line as recently as the 1970's. No you didn't read that wrong either.

Expected ridership for the three train scenario - less than what Amtrak developed in 1996 when it simply ran two New York to Pittsburgh trains.

New equipment. Maybe use Talgo Trains. Or Colordao Railcar DMU's. Because we can simulate them in our TPC. Yes, that was the reasoning. They don't even seem aware Colorado Railcar is out of business.

I read this last night and was speechless.

You all know me - I am a rail engineering designer, I do rail rail operations analysis, and rail construction work too. If I had been involved in this study (we came in second to the winning team) I would be so embarrassed that someone at my company or my client insisted on publishing such ridiculous conclusions that I would walk away from it.

Common sense steps missing from the study:
1) use 5" unbalance on the curves by lengthening spirals

2) add a third track only where required by schedule and able to permit higher speeds (generally Harrisburg-Lewistown, Tyrone-Altoona, and Conpit-Greensburg)

3) Return to a schedule resembling what the PC ran as recently as 1970 - four daytime passenger trains per day running through to New York or at least Philadelphia (late at night/early morning) - and similar to what is still run on the double track line from Albany to Buffalo.

4) Develop more frequencies to Pittsburgh simply by extending Keystone trains west and adding a cafe car to them so that there is a common equipment pool. 4 frequencies can be run to/from Pittsburgh by adding just one trainset to what is currently used - using 11 trainsets instead of the present 8 on the Keystone and 2 on the Pennsylvanian. There is almost no scheduling change to the Keystone service required to do this and it doesn't rely on any trip time improvements west of Harrisburg. 3 frequencies to/from Pittsburgh can be run with the existing equipment pool augmented with an extra cab car and a three cafes and one extra P42/P32 if the engine change is made in Harrisburg. Most of that equipment can be seen sitting rusting to the rails at Race Street and Penn Coach yard every day of the year.

5) Use the plans the PRR developed 100 years ago for select curve easements on this line, and start by eliminating the curves over 3 degrees and then over 2 degrees. Ease the curves not just for passenger speeds, but to eliminate slowdowwns by the freights from their maximum operating speeds of 50 and 60 mph. This is far less important that simply adding frequencies to develop ridership.

6) Change out interlockings to #24 turnouts for 60 mph (as being done in North Carolina on NS) and signal for clear for Norfolk Southern freight speeds (which are either 50 or 60 mph) and use a 270 code overlay for Amtrak to differentiate 60 mph from 80 mph cab codes. I believe the tangential #32 turnouts they propose using are too fragile to stand up to the heavy freight traffic of this line, while the #24 turnouts are being used extensively by UP and BNSF as well as now on NS.

7) Close the handful of most dangerous grade crossings on the line.

8) Install platforms on both sides of the tracks.

The study couldn't be bothered to look at ridership before 2007 (I guess they didn't know where to find it) and didn't look at historic scheduling or trip times. Fail and fail.

5" unblance plus select curve easements and a third track in select locations for 90 mph speeds can shave 30 minutes off the timetable. Schedule reliability due to a robust enough operational infrastructre as existed in 1966 allowed the Juniata to make the run with all stops in 5 hours flat with a 75 mph top speed. Taking that as a base schedule case implies a relatively straightfoward path to a 4 hour 30 minute schedule for anyone with a historic perspective.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/15 11:03 by abyler.

abyler Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> RuleG Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> >
> > I don't think it's that easy any more. In 1980
> > when the Pennsylvanian was inaugurated, traffic
> > volumes on the Pittsburgh Line were much lower
> > than they are now. Adding even just one more
> > train in each direction seems to require
> > negotiations with Norfolk Southern that were
> not
> > required of Conrail in 1980. Someone who is
> > knowledgeable about Norfolk Southern's
> > requirements please correct me if I'm wrong
> about
> > what's involved to add a second train.
>
> Traffic levels were not much lower in 1980, they
> were way, way higher than anything run anywhere on
> the US rail system today outside of the UP from
> North Platte to Gibbon. You seem to be
> misremembering the effects of the
> deindustrialization of the northeastern US in the
> period 1979 to 1986 and the elimination of coal
> fired power plants in the northeast. Needless to
> say it was devestating to rail traffic.

The map following map (published in the February 2007 issue of Trains Magazine) comparing 1980 Conrail tonnage with 2005 Norfolk Southern tonnage supports my statement. I also base my claims on observations of freight train traffic while riding the Pennsylvanian. I see many more NS freights than I remember CR operating on the Pittsburgh Line.

http://trn.trains.com/railroads/railroad-maps/2010/01/mainline-tonnage-1980-2005


> You folks who keep saying just absolute nonsense
> like this on Trainorders may fool some people some
> of the time, and maybe you fool some current
> railroad managers too if you work on the railroad,
> and you certainly fool the fools in government,
> but you won't fool those of us who remember what
> the railroads used to do as little as 30+ years
> ago.

You need to dial back your tone. My statement is supported by the map's graphics.

My other reason for using 1980 as a baseline is that the impact of deregulation did not kick in until after 1980 when train traffic increased.

>
> A second train wasn't inagurated, because it had
> always been there - the National Limited, which
> had just been discontinued.

Although the gap between the discontinuance of the National Limited and the beginning of the Pennsylvanian was only around 6 months, inauguration is the correct term to describe start-up of the Pennsylvanian.
>
> Norfolk Southern previously did a study in the
> mid-2000's that came up with a fraction of the
> costs in this study.

That's news to me, but good to know about and constitutes the kind of information I sought when asking if anyone knowledgeable about this would weigh in. Is there a website on which this study is posted?
>
> Its beyond comical that with essentially the exact
> same infrastructure today and less than half the
> trains being run, it is somehow necessary to spend
> north of $1 billion to put a second passenger
> train back.

While I understand that there is not a one-to-one correlation between tonnage and numbers of trains, tonnage still seems to be a reasonable proxy for train numbers. Accordingly the map's graphics imply that NS is running more trains on the Pittsburgh Line than CR did in 1980. The only way there could be significantly more tonnage but half the freight trains is if there was a significant in the proportion of heavy tonnage trains (i.e. coal, grain and steel) in relation to lighter trains such as intermodals. However, with the operation of double-stack trains beginning in the 1990s, I would tend to believe that the trend has been towards intermodal trains comprising a higher proportion of total freight train traffic.

At some point I'll review the report to try to figure out why it would cost $1 billion to accommodate another train. I agree that $1 billion seems excessive. It is, unfortunately, of a similar magnitude of what the western railroads claim is needed to run the Sunset Limited daily or to reinstate the North Coast Hiawatha.

bluesboyst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How many trains were on run around horseshoe back
> in 1980? I think there are about 60 plus
> today...

The magazine article I quoted by Fred Frailey noted 135 trains per day run into and out of Johnstown from Pittsburgh. I would suspect the vast majority continued on over the curve. A handful would have gone to/from the Clearfield cluster or been locals out of Johnstown.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My view is whatever the traffic levels are now,
> Harrisburg - Pittsburgh has been far better run by
> NS than Conrail, who seemed to create a lot more
> congestion west of the Rockville Bridge and
> between Altoona and Johnstown. There has not be
> any of the Indiana Meltdown nonsense here. That
> said, NS would demand a ransom for capacity
> expansion for 2nd frequency even if we intuitively
> think it is not necessary.

NS already studied this issue in 2005 (Keystone West Passenger Train Study) and came up with a figure an order of magnitude LOWER than was released in this study. Something like $140 MILLION for two additional frequencies instead of $1.4 BILLION.

That isn't a ransom.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> abyler Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > RuleG Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> > >
> > > I don't think it's that easy any more. In
> 1980
> > > when the Pennsylvanian was inaugurated,
> traffic
> > > volumes on the Pittsburgh Line were much
> lower
> > > than they are now. Adding even just one more
> > > train in each direction seems to require
> > > negotiations with Norfolk Southern that were
> > not
> > > required of Conrail in 1980. Someone who is
> > > knowledgeable about Norfolk Southern's
> > > requirements please correct me if I'm wrong
> > about
> > > what's involved to add a second train.
> >
> > Traffic levels were not much lower in 1980,
> they
> > were way, way higher than anything run anywhere
> on
> > the US rail system today outside of the UP from
> > North Platte to Gibbon. You seem to be
> > misremembering the effects of the
> > deindustrialization of the northeastern US in
> the
> > period 1979 to 1986 and the elimination of coal
> > fired power plants in the northeast. Needless
> to
> > say it was devestating to rail traffic.
>
> The map following map (published in the February
> 2007 issue of Trains Magazine) comparing 1980
> Conrail tonnage with 2005 Norfolk Southern tonnage
> supports my statement. I also base my claims on
> observations of freight train traffic while riding
> the Pennsylvanian. I see many more NS freights
> than I remember CR operating on the Pittsburgh
> Line.
>
> http://trn.trains.com/railroads/railroad-maps/2010
> /01/mainline-tonnage-1980-2005

Its imposible to make a simple comparison by tonnage. Car size, length, and average tonnage has been continually increasing for decades. In 1980, the typical tonnage was more like 70 tons per car instead of 100+ tons today. Train lengths were shorter, and traffic mix was different (more coal and manifest, less intermodal). Progressive Railroading posts some statistics on this every year.

Visual observation of traffic from the Pennsylvanian is obviously deceptive and subject to the Pauline Kael effect (i.e. How did Nixon win? I don't know anyone who voted for him).

Best to go with stated traffic density. Current traffic density over the mountain is less. There are numerous sources for this.

> > You folks who keep saying just absolute
> nonsense
> > like this on Trainorders may fool some people
> some
> > of the time, and maybe you fool some current
> > railroad managers too if you work on the
> railroad,
> > and you certainly fool the fools in government,
> > but you won't fool those of us who remember
> what
> > the railroads used to do as little as 30+ years
> > ago.
>
> You need to dial back your tone. My statement is
> supported by the map's graphics.

Sorry, I'm extremely bitter about this study right now, which is obviosuly going to be used to kill any idea of expanding rail service in Pennsylvania ("well, we studied it, its just too expensive"). Please forgive my tone.

> My other reason for using 1980 as a baseline is
> that the impact of deregulation did not kick in
> until after 1980 when train traffic increased.

You mean when train traffic decreased. Freight train traffic went down for two decades after deregulation, which is why so many main lines got single tracked or abandoned and so many yards got ripped up. The AAR and others have washed over this by obfuscating traffic statistics by instead looking at ton-miles. The railroads don't like to talk about tons handled or rail's market share of tons handled (which is something like 15% vs. 45% of ton-miles) and don't like to talk about cars originated, because those statistics were in long term decline. Hauling less traffic longer distances at slower speeds in bigger cars to fewer customers allowed them to hide giving up on short distance traffic to trucks and killing off the manifest network as American's industrial base was destroyed by "free" trade.

Really, think about the decline of the steel industry in the US, the auto parts and assembly industry, coal fired power plants, eastern coal mining, paper mills, textile mills, this can't have all happened without a massive negative impact to rail traffic. The only positive story has been the growth of petro-chemical and plastics traffic.

Recent railroad history is the story of coal mining shifting to Wyoming and Chinese containerized imports and Asian car imports to the west coast. This makes ton-miles go up as traffic is shipped thousands of miles across the empty mountains and plains to the population heartland of America east of I-35. It doesn't make for more traffic.

The real story post-deregulation is a recovery of railroad company financial health and stock prices, not a recovery of total rail traffic or rail revenue and certainly not railroad employment. Rail revenue in 2006 in constant dollars, although recovered from the period of 1993 to 2001, was lower than in any other years since 1909 except the depths of the Great Depression in 1932-1934. The happy talk about record profits and ton-miles hides an industry that is increasingly irrelevant to the domestic economy.

> > A second train wasn't inagurated, because it
> had
> > always been there - the National Limited, which
> > had just been discontinued.
>
> Although the gap between the discontinuance of the
> National Limited and the beginning of the
> Pennsylvanian was only around 6 months,
> inauguration is the correct term to describe
> start-up of the Pennsylvanian.

I suppose so, but its a stretch to pretend it was somehow a big change.

> > Norfolk Southern previously did a study in the
> > mid-2000's that came up with a fraction of the
> > costs in this study.
>
> That's news to me, but good to know about and
> constitutes the kind of information I sought when
> asking if anyone knowledgeable about this would
> weigh in. Is there a website on which this study
> is posted?

ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/bureaus/PublicTransportation/Keystonestudyvol1.pdf

ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/Bureaus/PublicTransportation/Keystonestudyvol2.pdf

Study conclusions were $111 million in additional infrastructure. They counted 104 existing trains per day operating on any segment of the line (not over the mountain) - this includes train just running to the Mon Line in Pittsburgh or over the Rockville bridge in the Harrisburg Terminal. The plan was to add 2 trains per day to make a total of four each way.

> > Its beyond comical that with essentially the
> exact
> > same infrastructure today and less than half
> the
> > trains being run, it is somehow necessary to
> spend
> > north of $1 billion to put a second passenger
> > train back.
>
> While I understand that there is not a one-to-one
> correlation between tonnage and numbers of trains,
> tonnage still seems to be a reasonable proxy for
> train numbers. Accordingly the map's graphics
> imply that NS is running more trains on the
> Pittsburgh Line than CR did in 1980. The only way
> there could be significantly more tonnage but half
> the freight trains is if there was a significant
> in the proportion of heavy tonnage trains (i.e.
> coal, grain and steel) in relation to lighter
> trains such as intermodals. However, with the
> operation of double-stack trains beginning in the
> 1990s, I would tend to believe that the trend has
> been towards intermodal trains comprising a higher
> proportion of total freight train traffic.

See comments above about the ever increasing average weight of railcars and length of trains.

> At some point I'll review the report to try to
> figure out why it would cost $1 billion to
> accommodate another train. I agree that $1 billion
> seems excessive. It is, unfortunately, of a
> similar magnitude of what the western railroads
> claim is needed to run the Sunset Limited daily or
> to reinstate the North Coast Hiawatha.

The Pittsburgh line is 250 miles. Those lines are 2200 miles. Intuitively, it should be 9 times less costly to add a train to the Pittsburgh line since there is 9 times less line to deal with.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/15 11:03 by abyler.

Ok, I'm not a railroad engineer, but the following seems LOGICAL:

1) Extend a Keystone or two to Harrisburg. Might require some minor track and facility restoration in Harrisburg to re-enable efficient engine changes. Build a market...especially with coordinated service to State College from the west (Altoona) and the East (Harrisburg or Lewistown).

2) Most of the NS Pittsburgh line ROW is 4 tracks wide, if I understand correctly, with three still in place. Restore the fourth track.

3) Work w/ NS and the feds to secure funding of a phased project to extend electrification from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh (so first perhaps to Altoona, then to Johnstown then to some other midpoint, then to Pittsburgh). Perhaps NS can even look into stringing up its Harrisburg line to Reading, and to North Jersey to leverage off this....a lot of traffic on this busy lane is high-speed intermodal, so electric propulsion would be of an advantage. This will create a high-capacity Y-shaped freight and passenger artery across the state.

4) No need to go high-speed....consistent passenger train speeds of 80-90mph should be sufficient.

What are some possible costs of something like this? Seems to me to be a pretty realistic plan, and should NOT cost $13B as it will require close to zero property acquisition. I mean if this is done in the year 2100, then yes, it WILL cost $13B just because of inflation, but.....

chs7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok, I'm not a railroad engineer, but the following
> seems LOGICAL:
>
> 1) Extend a Keystone or two to Harrisburg. Might
> require some minor track and facility restoration
> in Harrisburg to re-enable efficient engine
> changes. Build a market...especially with
> coordinated service to State College from the west
> (Altoona) and the East (Harrisburg or Lewistown).
>
> 2) Most of the NS Pittsburgh line ROW is 4 tracks
> wide, if I understand correctly, with three still
> in place. Restore the fourth track.

Its two tracks with some sidings from Harrisburg to Tyrone, 3 tracks from Tyrone to Conpit Jct., and the two tracks to Pittsburgh with the Conemaugh line as a bypass single track. The real capacity needs are Harrisburg and Pittsburgh Terminals, and Conpit to Tyrone through Johnstown and Altoona, a distance of about 68 miles (thought 10 miles already has a 4th track in Johnstown and Altoona). There are also speed related opportunities for a 3rd track from Harrisburg to short of Lewistown for 60 miles, and from Torrance to Greensburg for 20 miles. So a maximum of 140 miles of 3rd or 4th track should be considered on the basis of scheduling, train performance simulators and existing freight train congestion.

> 3) Work w/ NS and the feds to secure funding of a
> phased project to extend electrification from
> Harrisburg to Pittsburgh (so first perhaps to
> Altoona, then to Johnstown then to some other
> midpoint, then to Pittsburgh). Perhaps NS can
> even look into stringing up its Harrisburg line to
> Reading, and to North Jersey to leverage off
> this....a lot of traffic on this busy lane is
> high-speed intermodal, so electric propulsion
> would be of an advantage. This will create a
> high-capacity Y-shaped freight and passenger
> artery across the state.

This would be extremely expensive and disruptive - probably in excess of $5M per mile.

> 4) No need to go high-speed....consistent
> passenger train speeds of 80-90mph should be
> sufficient.

I agree. Generally NS is amenable to 80 mph on their main tracks, and will consider 90 mph on special tracks designated for passenger and intermodal trains.

> What are some possible costs of something like
> this? Seems to me to be a pretty realistic plan,
> and should NOT cost $13B as it will require close
> to zero property acquisition. I mean if this is
> done in the year 2100, then yes, it WILL cost $13B
> just because of inflation, but.....

Here is a quick way to estimate costs based on numbers used by the Class I's to add track to an existing line on a broad existing roadbed and right of way on a cab signaled line. About $320/ft. for new trackwork ($1.7 million per mile). Then use around 45% of that value for signals, 45% more for heavy civil modifications (grading, bridges, culverts), 45% more for engineering and soft costs (contingency). That becomes $4 million per mile.

I think all the talk about electrification, additional tracks, higher speeds, straightened curves, etc. is never going to happen, at least in our lifetime, between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.

I think the best we can hope for will be a second New York - Pittsburgh train, hopefully in conjunction with the Capital Limited. Westbound the train could leave Pittsburgh around 6:00 AM after splitting from the Cap, and westbound it could leave New York around 2:30 PM to meet up with the Capital around 11 or 11:30 PM. The current EB Pennsylvanian could leave around 8 or 8:30 AM, while the WB would continue on its current schedule. This train would benefit PA residents, especially between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, as it would provide a one seat ride between these points and Chicago, and vice/versa. The train would be classified as a state-supported train given its benefits to PA residents although the fact that it would be part of the Capital would require some negotiations over costs. Once the new Viewliners are put in service, and the new bi-levels free up the horizons and amfleets from the midwest, I think the equipment issues could be solved.

Whether this ever happens is total speculation, but, as I have said before, the East Coast - Midwest market contains a lot of potential that Amtrak needs to exploit. This would be one possible way to expand that market with the addition of only one additional train.

It is interesting to note that a good $6.5 billion of the $10 billion cost of Alternative 2 is between Lewistown and Huntingdon. If you simply don;pt do that and do the Alt 1 stuff there instead the cost suddenly drops down to below $4 billion. Question is how much time saving is accounted for by that extremely expensive part of the proposal.

Also the State College spur seems to be an example of the sort of project that give railroads a bad name. It seems to circle around the moon before getting to State College when coming from Philly. It will never be competitive against bus now matter how you slice and dice it.

let's not forget added capacity on the NEC ... i personally would like to see the Trenton Cutoff used for NY-HBG trains in conjuction with PHL-HBG ahuttles

Posted from Android

There needs to be:

- A 2nd frequency that would double route patronage. Some in western PA want 3 frequencies to double ridership. That won't fly.

- Recognition of a market transiting PGH to the midwest with thru cars

- A lot of dedicated feeder buses (Monroeville, State College, Hershey, Reading, York), and I do NOT mean coincidental Greyhound and Fullington Trailways buses that happen to run by the station. That is how California did it.

It should not be that difficult to reverse one of Amtrak's STUPIDEST network decisions they have made in the last 20 years.

Out_Of_Service Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> let's not forget added capacity on the NEC ... i
> personally would like to see the Trenton Cutoff
> used for NY-HBG trains in conjuction with PHL-HBG
> ahuttles

That skips Paoli and 30th St. 30th St. is the busiest stop on the line, and Paoli is in I believe #5 or 6. The demand simply is not there, nor is the infrastructure, nor is the speed. You could do the same thing by running the NY-Pittsburgh Subway and achieve a faster running time than via the Cutoff.

Through service from Harrisburg/Lancaster to NY only makes sense by also serving the intermediate Philadelphia market in both directions (from Harrisburg and to NY).